British Journal of Management, Vol.

21, 453468 (2010)

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00664.x

Leadership Styles as Predictors of

Self-reported and Observed Workplace
Bullying
Helge Hoel, Lars Glas,1 Jrn Hetland,1 Cary L. Cooper2 and
Stale Einarsen1
Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Booth Street West, Manchester M15 PB6, UK,
1
Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Christiesgt. 12, 5015 Bergen, Norway, and
2
Lancaster University Management School, University of Lancaster, Lancaster LA1 4VX, UK
Corresponding author email: helge.hoel@mbs.ac.uk

The connection between leadership or management style, on the one hand, and
perceptions of bullying, on the other, has received little attention within bullying
research. Hence, the aim of this study is to examine the relationship between
subordinates ratings of their immediate superiors behaviours, and both perceived
exposure and claims of observations of bullying at work. Based on a sampling process
which emphasized randomness and representativeness, the responses from 5288
respondents in Great Britain taking part in a nationwide study on psychosocial issues
at work were included in the analysis. Bullying correlated with all four leadership styles
measured. Yet, non-contingent punishment emerged as the strongest predictor of self-
perceived exposure to bullying, while autocratic leadership was the strongest predictor
of observed bullying. Hence, while observers particularly associate bullying with
autocratic or tyrannical leader behaviour, targets relate bullying more to non-
contingent punishment, i.e. an unpredictable style of leadership, where punishment is
meted out or delivered on leaders own terms, independent of the behaviour of
subordinates. In addition, laissez-faire leadership emerged as a predictor of self-
reported as well as observed bullying. Thus, leadership styles seem to play an important
but complex role in the bullying process.

Introduction public hospital employees, Niedl (1996) reported

Bullying and harassment are reported to happen
on a regular basis in many work organizations
(e.g. Einarsen and Skogstad, 1996; Hoel, Cooper
and Faragher, 2001; Keashly and Jagatic, 2000).
Depending upon the methodology applied and
the way the concept is operationalized, the
prevalence of bullying is estimated to be between
5% and 10% among the European workforce
(Paoli and Merille, 2001; Zapf et al., 2003).
Bullying also has grave negative consequences for
targets, observers and the organization itself (e.g.
Hoel, Faragher and Cooper, 2004; Leymann,
1996; Zapf, 1999). In a study of 368 Austrian
that targets of bullying showed higher levels of
anxiety, depression, irritation and psychosomatic
complaints than non-victims. There is also
evidence emerging of a relationship between
bullying and negative organizational outcomes,
such as absenteeism, turnover and reduced
productivity (Hoel, Einarsen and Cooper, 2003;
Sheehan et al., 2001). Moreover, such eects
appear to extend beyond those directly involved
to include also witnesses or bystanders (Hoel,
Faragher and Cooper, 2004; Rayner, Hoel and
Cooper, 2002; Unison, 1997). Such a ripple eect
(Hoel, Rayner and Cooper, 1999; Unison, 1997)
is noted in a number of studies (e.g. Hoel and

r 2009 British Academy of Management. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford
OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
454
Cooper, 2000; Unison, 1997; Vartia, 2001), with
witnesses reporting higher levels of stress, less job
satisfaction and higher turnover rates than those
who have not observed bullying taking place.
Hence, bullying is increasingly recognized as a
serious problem within the working environment,
potentially carrying a very substantial cost to the
organization (Hoel, Einarsen and Cooper, 2003;
Sheehan et al., 2001).
Bullying is reported to happen at all organiza-
tional levels (Hoel, Cooper and Faragher, 2001).
Yet, in many bullying cases, managers are seen as
the most typical perpetrators (Rayner, Hoel and
Cooper, 2002). In this respect, a Norwegian study
found that more than 50% of those considering
themselves as targets reported having been
bullied by someone in a managerial capacity
(Einarsen, Raknes and Matthiesen, 1994), rising
to 75% or even higher in countries such as the
UK (Hoel, Cooper and Faragher, 2001; Unison,
1997) and Ireland (OMoore et al., 1998).
Although leaders are often considered the main
perpetrators of bullying, leadership and manage-
ment style have received surprisingly little atten-
tion as antecedent of perceptions of bullying and
harassment. The aim of this study is therefore to
investigate the relationships between the leader-
ship style of line managers and supervisors, on
the one hand, and perceptions of bullying among
self-reported targets and observers of bullying, on
the other. The study adds to the growing
literature on bullying and harassment by inves-
tigating how four dierent styles of leadership are
associated with perceptions of bullying and
harassment among subordinates, employing a
large-scale nationwide representative sample of
the UK workforce.
The nature of workplace bullying and harassment
Bullying and harassment at work may be dened
as repeated behaviour, actions and practices
directed at one or more workers, which may be
carried out deliberately or unconsciously, but
which are unwanted by the targets, causing
humiliation, oence and distress, and which
may interfere with job performance and/or cause
an unpleasant working environment (Einarsen
and Raknes, 1991). Although a range of terms
are used to address the problem of psychological
violence among organization members while at
work, e.g. mobbing (Leymann, 1990), bullying
H. Hoel et al.
(Einarsen et al., 2003), emotional abuse (Keashly,
1998), mistreatment (Price Spratlen, 1995) and
incivility (Pearson, Andersson and Porath,
2005), denitions of bullying and harassment
at work are increasingly converging, with a focus
on characteristics such as unwanted negative
behaviour, persistency, duration and an imbal-
ance of power between perpetrator and target
(Di Martino, Hoel and Cooper, 2003; Einarsen
et al., 2003). Therefore, bullying is associated
with ongoing negative relationships where targets
strongly resent the received treatment, seeing it as
systematic and ongoing and nding it dicult to
defend themselves against it (Einarsen et al.,
2003). Although single acts of aggression and
harassment occur fairly frequently in everyday
interaction at work, they seem to be associated
with severe health problems when they are
experienced on a regular basis (Leymann, 1996).
The behaviours involved may also be subtle,
devious and immensely dicult to confront
(Adams, 1992, p. 17). Hence, they may even be
dicult to recognize, at least by non-aected
colleagues or supervisors. Yet, as these negative
work relationships become increasingly entrenched
and personal, third parties or witnesses can seldom
remain uninvolved as the targets will tend to seek
support for their case (Einarsen, 1996). While
some may support the target, others may not, even
turning against the target (Leymann, 1996).
Being aware of their own vulnerability and
fearful of becoming targets themselves (Rayner,
Hoel and Cooper, 2002), witnesses might decide
to choose to ignore the situation rather than
intervene on behalf of targets or, in some
instances, even collude in the bullying (Einarsen,
Raknes and Matthiesen, 1994). Alternatively,
observers may suer in silence, with stress and
mental health problems, reduced job satisfaction
and increased intentions to leave their job as
possible consequences. In other cases, non-
exposed colleagues may be subjected to stress
if summoned as witnesses when the case is
under investigation by senior management (see
Merchant and Hoel, 2003).
Leadership styles and perceptions of bullying
Managers are reported to be the most frequent
perpetrators from the point of view of targets
(Rayner, Hoel and Cooper, 2002). Whilst bully-
ing is predominantly a downward process with
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
Leadership and Bullying
managers seen as the key source or instigators,
research has shown that this phenomenon is
experienced by people at all hierarchical levels of
the organization, thus aecting managers as well
as workers (Hoel, Cooper and Faragher, 2001).
Yet, as research on leadership and styles of
leaders has primarily focused on leader eective-
ness and those factors which might contribute to
optimal performance and output (see Northouse
(2004) for an overview), we know surprisingly
little about situations where subordinates resent
the leadership style of their own leader. Further-
more, in much of the research on leadership,
ineective leadership has simply been considered
to be the opposite of eective leadership (Ash-
forth, 1994). As a result, those aspects of leader-
ship which might be considered negative and even
destructive with detrimental consequences for
subordinates and followers have largely been
overlooked (Hoel and Cooper, 2000; Rayner and
Cooper, 2003).
Still, in organizational climate research from
the mid-1950s to the 1990s, 60% to 75% of all
employees typically reported that the worst
aspect of their job was their immediate super-
visor. Several studies have also suggested that the
personal style of leaders may negatively inuence
the working climate and the productivity of the
organization (Ekvall et al., 2002; Kets de Vries
and Miller, 1984). While supportive leaders seem
to increase the subordinates job satisfaction
(Packard and Kauppi, 1999), by contrast sub-
ordinates who perceived themselves to be bullied
by their leaders experience low job satisfaction
and report many symptoms of health problems
(Skogstad, 1997). It is therefore not surprising
that stress research has revealed that abusive and
tyrannical leaders are an important source of
stress for subordinates (Hogan, 1994; Hogan and
Hogan, 2001). In line with these ndings, Kile
(1990) reported that subordinates with an abusive
leader may suer from anxiety, depression,
gastrointestinal and circulation problems. It is
also claimed that many employees spend much of
their time simply trying to cope with destructive
leaders (Hogan, Raskin and Fazzini, 1990), with
targets of such abusive supervisors reporting a
low level of loyalty and commitment to the
organization (Tepper, 2000).
Focusing on destructive aspects of the leader
subordinate relationship, Frost (2004) asserts
that subordinates may often experience toxic
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
455
emotions when interacting with superiors, such as
pain, suering and despair caused by insensitive,
self-serving and autocratic bosses. Similarly, a
Norwegian study demonstrated that subordinates
may experience a number of negative emotions in
their dealings with leaders, such as frustration,
uncertainty and feelings of violation (Glas and
Einarsen, 2006). These emotions were strongly
associated with the subordinates assessment of
the quality of the leadersubordinate relation-
ship. A lack of respect and trust in the leader
subordinate relationship may also increase levels
of emotional regulation, e.g. suppressing or
faking ones own emotions during any interac-
tion, which again may have short-term as well as
long-term detrimental eects on recipients, such
as reduced job satisfaction, increased intention to
leave and higher levels of subjective health
complaints (Glas et al., 2006).
As far as the role of leaders in bullying
scenarios is concerned, leaders might instigate
perceptions of bullying unknowingly. Based on
survey data, bullying has been associated with
lack of involvement in decision-making processes
and with work environments where employees
are afraid of expressing their opinions and where
an authoritarian way of settling conicts prevails
(Vartia, 1996). Satisfaction with supervisors
ability to resolve work-related conict has also
been found to account for the largest dierence
between bullied and non-bullied respondents
(OMoore et al., 1998). With bullying associated
with an unequal balance of power, many bullying
scenarios might develop from situations in which
leaders attempt to control the behaviour of
subordinates by means of force. This would
particularly be the case where such use of force
is considered unreasonable or unjustied by the
recipients. From the leaders perspective, such use
of force can be instrumental in nature, motivated
by meeting organizational outcomes (Einarsen
et al., 2003), e.g. by increasing employee eort or
counteracting employee conduct deemed unac-
ceptable or sub-standard by the leader. In being
directive and willing to apply force to achieve
organizational goals, such behaviour can be
associated with what is often described as an
autocratic style of leadership. This term emerged
from the seminal work of Kurt Lewin and
colleagues (Lewin, Lippitt and White, 1939) who
in the 1940s applied the distinction democratic
versus autocratic to decision-making processes
456
and productivity of groups within a work context
(Burnes, 2007). These two opposing styles of
leadership have frequently been applied in
organizational studies, although the term demo-
cratic leadership has often been replaced by
participative leadership, as a form of leadership
distinct from task-oriented and relationship-
oriented leadership behaviour (Yukl, 2000).
Although no agreement has emerged with regard
to denitions or taxonomies of these respective
terms (e.g. Foels et al., 2000; Johnson and Klee,
2007), it has been usual to see autocratic leader-
ship as being at one end of a continuum, focusing
on compliance, and delegation at the other (e.g.
Yukl, 2000). Autocratic leadership is therefore
often used synonymously with a directive or even
coercive style of leadership, although with its
potency in terms of how it is operationalized
varying from relatively moderate to relatively
extreme levels (Foels et al., 2000), where concepts
such as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000) or
tyrannical leadership (Einarsen, Aasland and
Skogstad, 2007) have been to used to describe the
latter.
As autocratic leadership may render any
aspirations of involvement impossible, this style
may be considered negative and even a source of
bullying in itself (OMoore et al., 1998; Vartia,
1996). Managers who fail to manage their own
pressures and stress, reverting to or falling into
an autocratic or even tyrannical style of leader-
ship in particularly stressful circumstances (Hoel
and Salin, 2003), where involvement and con-
structive criticism may be replaced by rage and
shouting, exhibit behaviour which, for the sub-
ordinates as well for witnesses or observers, may
come across as both threatening and incompre-
hensible. Moreover, an autocratic style could
bring about frustration and aggression among
subordinates, possibly giving rise to or increasing
the likelihood of peer aggression (e.g. Felson,
1992), and in this way act as an antecedent of
bullying.
H1: Self-reported bullying is positively asso-
ciated with autocratic leadership.
H2: Self-reported bullying is negatively asso-
ciated with participative leadership.
H3: Witnessed or observed bullying is posi-
tively associated with autocratic leadership.
H4: Witnessed or observing bullying is nega-
tively associated with participatory leadership.
H. Hoel et al.
The legitimacy of autocratic leadership, arising
from the managerial prerogative, whether actu-
ally judged to be productive or not, rests on
leaders motivation for using force to ensure
compliance, although the prevailing culture will
impact on judgements (Hoel and Salin, 2003).
Accordingly, with respect to the administration
of acts or behaviour which could be construed as
punishment by subordinates for non-compliance,
Podsako, Todor and Skov (1982) made a
distinction between contingent and non-contin-
gent punishment. Examining the impact of social
rewards and punishment, they concluded that
subordinate behaviour is inuenced by the
contingencies upon which rewards and punish-
ment are administered (Peng and Peterson, 1998,
p. 70). Thus, when rewards and punishment are
administered on the basis of, or in response to,
tangible standards for performance and beha-
viour, they are more welcomed and satisfying to
subordinates than when delivered arbitrarily or
for no good reason (Atwater et al., 1998; Peng
and Peterson, 1998). Hence, where the actual
behaviour of the leader is considered as punish-
ment for failing to comply with what is perceived
as unreasonable demands or unknown standards,
or simply as being arbitrary, it is likely to be
judged as an abuse of power and something that
the subordinate may nd dicult to grasp and
cope with. Moreover, where managers or lead-
ers use of force is motivated by self-interest,
narcissism or self-aggrandizement (Ashforth,
1994), rather than by the perceived interest of
the organization, one may argue that such
behaviour is more likely to be seen as illegitimate
and an abuse of power by those at the receiving
end as well as by observers. This would also
apply to situations where powerless or failing
leaders attempt to gain or retain control by
means of punitive actions (Ashforth, 1994). As
explained by Atwater et al. (1998, p. 563),
Leaders may feel more powerful if they can
deliver punishment on their own terms (i.e. non-
contingent).
Ashforth (1994) argues that destructive leaders
may foster helplessness and despair among
subordinates by curbing their initiative and
closely controlling them. Through arbitrariness
and non-contingent punishment, these leaders
may render the work environment unpredictable,
which might cause frustration and stress for the
subordinates involved. Similarly, in an interview
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
Leadership and Bullying
study exploring the concept of destructive leader-
ship styles among Norwegian managers, Kile
(1990) identied a number of negative or
destructive leader types, many of which had in
common that their behaviour was perceived as
unpredictable and inconsistent. According to
Kile, such behaviour is likely to generate
uncertainty, resentment, fear as well as anger
among subordinates.
H5: Self-reported bullying is positively asso-
ciated with a leadership style applying non-
contingent punishment (NCP leadership).
H6: Witnessed or observed bullying is posi-
tively associated with a leadership style apply-
ing non-contingent punishment (NCP
leadership).
Another style of leadership often mentioned in
the management literature is laissez-faire leader-
ship (e.g. Bass and Avolio, 1990), where leaders
are physically in post but fail to carry out their
duties. But, as has been argued by Skogstad et al.
(2007), the eect of such leadership is not a zero-
sum game, as the abdication of responsibility fails
to meet the expectation of subordinates and,
indeed, the organization, with possibly detrimen-
tal eects on both. In this respect, it is also
possible that passive leadership may become
destructive and failure to lead may be construed
as bullying in its own right, e.g. where leaders fail
to respond or act in line with clear expectations.
The absence of adequate leadership may be
experienced by subordinates as an intended and
systematic neglect and ignorance, even to the
extent that they feel socially excluded and
ostracized. For example, Frischer and Larsson
(2000) reported laissez-faire leadership to be the
main reason why Swedish PhD students drop out
of their doctoral programme.
Theoretically it has been assumed that a
laissez-faire style of leadership could also con-
tribute to bullying by turning a blind eye to
conicts or by failure to intervene appropriately
when approached, thus indirectly condoning the
behaviour (Einarsen et al., 2003). Besides, it may
be argued that passivity or laissez-faire behaviour
on the part of managers could provoke group
conicts and peer-bullying, hence acting as an
antecedent to bullying, when decisions inappro-
priately are left to the group or when leaders
absences give rise to operational and co-opera-
tional problems. In addition, with bullying
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
457
associated with role conict and lack of task
clarity (Einarsen, Raknes and Matthiesen, 1994),
failing to pay attention to such aspects of
leadership requirement could indirectly contri-
bute to bullying.
H7: Self-reported bullying is positively asso-
ciated with a laissez-faire style of leadership.
H8: Witnessed or observed bullying is posi-
tively associated with a laissez-faire style of
leadership.
Method
Sample
This study forms part of a nationwide survey of
the prevalence of bullying in Great Britain (see
Hoel, Cooper and Faragher, 2001). A question-
naire was mailed to a sample of employees
identied by means of a procedure ensuring
randomness and acceptable representativeness,
and drawn from 70 organizations within the
private, public and voluntary sectors across the
country. Together these organizations employed
just under 1 million people. A total of 5288
questionnaires were returned, giving a response
rate of 42.8%. Of the respondents 52.4% were
men and 47.6% women. The average age for the
sample was 40.2 (SD 5 0.84). The respondents
identied their organizational status as workers
(43.6%), foremen/women or supervisors (here-
after referred to as supervisors) (14.9%), middle
management (21.1%), senior management
(7.3%) and others (13.1%).
Measurements
Exposure to workplace bullying was measured by
a self-labelling approach. The following deni-
tion was presented to the respondents (see
Einarsen and Skogstad, 1996, p. 191):
We dene bullying as a situation where one or several
individuals persistently over a period of time perceive
themselves to be on the receiving end of negative
actions from one or several persons, in a situation
where the target of bullying has diculty in defending
him or herself against these actions. We will not refer
to a one-o incident as bullying.
458
The denition was immediately followed by the
question, using the above denition, please state
whether you have been bullied at work over the
last six months, accompanied by six answer
alternatives with regard to frequency of experi-
ence (no, rarely, now and then, monthly, weekly
and daily).
Observed bullying was measured with the use of
the Bergen Bullying Indicator (Einarsen and
Raknes, 1991), a ve-item instrument which
measures the degree to which bullying is perceived
to constitute a problem in the workplace (e.g.
Bullying at my workplace reduces our e-
ciency). A four-point Likert scale, ranging from
totally agree to totally disagree, was applied. To
obtain a pure measure of observed and witnessed
bullying, we controlled in the statistical analyses
for self-labelling as a victim (see Figure 1, which
presents the hypothesized model).
Non-contingent punishment was measured with
four items taken from the Leader Reward and
Punishment Questionnaire Scale (Podsako,
Todor and Skov, 1982). The items refer to a
punitive management style where the punishment
seems to be unrelated to, or not contingent upon,
the behaviour of the subordinate (e.g. Repri-
mands me without me knowing why). Autocratic
leadership was measured with seven items, focus-
Autocratic
leadership
NCP
leadership
Laissez-faire
leadership
Participative
leadership
Figure 1. Leadership styles and self-reported bullying: hypothesized model
H. Hoel et al.
ing on a style of leadership where there is no
room for employee involvement in the decision-
making process and where such involvement is
considered unnecessary (e.g. Ignores my views
and opinions). Laissez-faire leadership was mea-
sured with three items which refer to indierence
and lack of involvement in tasks as well as lack of
interest in employees (e.g. Ignores problems
when they arise). Participative leadership (seven
items) measures the extent to which the leader
values employee involvement and participation
(e.g. Shares information with me). The items of
the last three scales were designed for this study
by means of a focus group study. All measures of
leadership were written in behavioural terms with
no reference to motivation or intent.
The leadership styles were all measured by
means of a ve-point Likert scale giving the
answer alternatives Never, Seldom, Occasion-
ally, Often and Always. To avoid response
sets, items were formulated positively as well as
negatively. The Cronbach alpha levels for all
scales were in the range 0.730.92, suggesting
satisfactory internal consistency among all seven
scales, well above Nunnallys (1978) recommended
minimum level of 0.70. A conrmatory factor
analysis of the four hypothesized leadership styles
showed an acceptable t to data (w2 5 4599.3;
Self reported
bullying
Observed
bullying
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
Leadership and Bullying
comparative t index (CFI) 5 0.93; root-mean-
square error of approximation (RMSEA) 5
0.064). In the model the leadership styles were
assumed to be related, and the analysis yielded that
the three negative leadership styles were strongly
and positively correlated.
Analysis
Pearson productmoment correlations and struc-
tural equation models were used to analyse the
data. All structural equation models were tested
by means of AMOS 7. Initially, the overall
measurement model was tested including the four
leadership styles and the two outcome measure-
ments in question. In the measurement model all
the latent variables and the outcome variables
were assumed to co-vary. Subsequently, the
hypothesized structural model was tested. In the
hypothesized model (Figure 1), structural paths
from the four leadership styles to the two
bullying outcome measures were estimated.
Furthermore, observed bullying was regressed
on self-reported bullying, in order to control the
prediction of observation of bullying for self-
reported bullying. To evaluate the goodness of t
of the models the RMSEA and CFI were
applied.1 In the analysis, the dierent models
were also compared by evaluating the change in
w2 relative to the change in degrees of freedom.
Results
Preliminary analyses
Standard deviations and correlations for the
observed variables are shown in Table 1. The
correlation coecients were in the range 0.10
0.78, and all coecients were signicant at the
99% level.
Mean, standard deviation, alpha and inter-
correlations for the study constructs are pre-
sented in Table 2. All scales show adequate
internal consistency with alphas varying from
1
A value of RMSEA less than 0.05 indicates a good t,
while values as high as 0.08 represent reasonable errors
of approximation in the population (Browne and
Cudeck, 1993). Originally a CFI over 0.90 was
considered to be representative of a well-tting model
(Bentler, 1992); however, a revised cut-o value close to
0.95 has more recently been advised (Bentler and Yuan,
1999).
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
459
0.77 to 0.92. Positive correlations ranging from
0.46 to 0.68 were found between NCP and
autocratic leadership, while negative correlations
ranging from 0.48 to 0.66 were found
between NCP and autocratic leadership, on the
one hand, and participative leadership, on the
other. Between observed bullying and the leader-
ship styles, correlations in the range from 0.27
to 0.38 emerged, while the corresponding correla-
tions for self-reported bullying were in the range
from 0.25 to 0.42. All correlation coecients
were signicant at the 99% level.
Structural equation models
Table 3 presents t indices for the estimated
structural equation models examining the relation-
ship between leadership styles and the two bullying
outcomes. The initial measurement model showed
acceptable t to data (CFI 5 0.94; RMSEA 5
0.059), and acceptable factor loadings (range 0.53
0.86) were found across all the four leadership
styles. Furthermore, the measurement model re-
vealed signicant correlations between all four
leadership styles and the two measures of bullying.
For self-reported bullying the following correlations
were found: participative (r 5 0.26, po0.001),
NCP (r 5 0.46, po0.001), autocratic (r 5 0.39, po
0.001) and laissez-faire (r 5 0.31, po0.001). The
corresponding correlations for observed bullying
were participative (r 5 0.28, po0.001), NCP (r 5
0.39, po0.001), autocratic (r 5 0.41, po0.001) and
laissez-faire (r 5 0.30, po0.001) for the full sample.
When imposing the hypothesized paths from
the four leadership styles on the two measures of
bullying in the structural model, the t remained
acceptable. However, in the model the paths from
participative and autocratic leadership to self-
reported bullying, as well as the paths from
participative and NCP leadership to observed
bullying, were not signicant. Consequently, a
nal model constraining these paths to be zero
was tested. In the nal model an insignicant
decrease in w2 by degrees of freedom (Dw2 5 6.32,
Ddf 5 4, p40.05) and a good t (CFI 5 0.94;
RMSEA 5 0.059) were found, supporting the
validity of the constraints. Structural paths and
factor correlations between the leadership styles
in the nal model are illustrated in Figure 2.
For self-reported bullying positive signicant
paths were found from both NCP and laissez-
faire leadership (b 5 0.46, po0.001, b 5 0.06,
 460

Table 1. Standard deviations and correlations between observed variables (total sample)
SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

1. Part1 1.163 0.621 1

2. Part2 1.245 0.610 0.645 1
3. Part3 1.208 0.590 0.643 0.633 1
4. Part4 1.242 0.519 0.569 0.554 0.564 1
5. Part5 1.196 0.527 0.555 0.576 0.612 0.659 1
6. Part6 1.052 0.644 0.637 0.640 0.683 0.584 0.614 1
7. Part7 1.219 0.625 0.777 0.656 0.685 0.596 0.604 0.713 1
8. Aut1 1.188 0.490 0.508 0.515 0.535 0.475 0.557 0.541 0.543 1
9. Aut2 1.107 0.296 0.335 0.315 0.371 0.297 0.361 0.376 0.358 0.451 1
10. Aut3 1.175 0.398 0.444 0.393 0.491 0.428 0.465 0.453 0.482 0.535 0.440 1
11. Aut4 1.172 0.274 0.282 0.319 0.300 0.302 0.417 0.336 0.319 0.455 0.373 0.365 1
12. Aut5 1.167 0.234 0.210 0.262 0.261 0.255 0.363 0.275 0.245 0.396 0.321 0.339 0.558 1
13. Aut6 1.314 0.328 0.361 0.349 0.428 0.321 0.404 0.423 0.403 0.474 0.396 0.423 0.372 0.364 1
14. Aut7 1.135 0.421 0.415 0.440 0.487 0.423 0.501 0.508 0.478 0.551 0.515 0.488 0.415 0.416 0.621 1
15. NCP1 1.292 0.273 0.262 0.307 0.361 0.245 0.361 0.350 0.307 0.452 0.338 0.317 0.387 0.373 0.416 0.429 1
16. NCP2 0.789 0.268 0.243 0.280 0.338 0.253 0.345 0.346 0.285 0.427 0.320 0.354 0.349 0.308 0.404 0.435 0.520 1
17. NCP3 0.685 0.322 0.302 0.355 0.411 0.297 0.410 0.409 0.349 0.493 0.353 0.348 0.441 0.404 0.449 0.489 0.614 0.601 1
18. NCP4 0.870 0.297 0.301 0.340 0.379 0.243 0.375 0.387 0.329 0.484 0.370 0.352 0.439 0.379 0.444 0.453 0.513 0.516 0.595 1
19. Laiz1 0.949 0.362 0.427 0.381 0.445 0.367 0.401 0.435 0.444 0.500 0.429 0.470 0.308 0.248 0.418 0.512 0.333 0.312 0.326 0.347 1
20. Laiz2 1.084 0.409 0.489 0.432 0.494 0.374 0.431 0.489 0.505 0.543 0.433 0.511 0.301 0.225 0.424 0.495 0.313 0.325 0.333 0.357 0.665 1
21. Laiz3 0.154 0.352 0.381 0.331 0.376 0.312 0.367 0.410 0.414 0.415 0.341 0.419 0.277 0.195 0.372 0.425 0.248 0.273 0.284 0.313 0.423 0.486 1
22. S.r. bul 4.748 0.117 0.101 0.134 0.130 0.091 0.136 0.152 0.115 0.185 0.142 0.128 0.128 0.125 0.170 0.183 0.198 0.252 0.202 0.207 0.162 0.141 0.109 1
23. Obs. bul 1.163 0.218 0.205 0.212 0.233 0.214 0.246 0.248 0.223 0.292 0.254 0.229 0.250 0.246 0.305 0.330 0.295 0.314 0.303 0.299 0.263 0.230 0.187 0.308

All correlations: po0.01.

H. Hoel et al.

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

Leadership and Bullying 461

Table 2. Correlations, means, standard deviations and alpha for study constructs

x SD a 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. NCP leadership 1.51 0.67 0.83

2. Autocratic leadership 2.34 0.86 0.85 0.68*
3. Laissez-faire leadership 2.40 0.94 0.77 0.46* 0.66*
4. Participative leadership 3.11 0.97 0.92 0.48* 0.66* 0.61*
5. Observed bullying 8.48 4.75 0.92 0.37* 0.38* 0.28* 0.27*
6. Self-reported bullying 1.24 0.76 0.42* 0.35* 0.27* 0.25* 0.50*

*po0.001.

Table 3. Model t and model comparison for measurement model and structural models

Model x2 df CFI RMSEA Dx2 Ddf

Measurement model 4726.13 239 0.94 0.060

Hypothesized model 4726.13 239 0.94 0.060
Insignicant paths constrained to be zero 4732.45 243 0.94 0.061 6.32 ns 4

po0.001, respectively). Regarding observed bul-
lying a positive signicant path was found from
autocratic leadership (b 5 0.31, po0.001) and a
negative signicant path from laissez-faire leader-
ship (b 5 0.08, po0.001) was revealed. Finally,
a signicant positive path was found from
self-reported to observed bullying (b 5 0.40,
po0.001). In the nal model the explained
variances for self-reported and observed bullying
were 21% and 30%, respectively.
Discussion
Bullying and harassment are often seen as
synonymous with abusive supervision and aggres-
sive management behaviour in Anglo-American
cultures. Yet, few studies have explicitly investi-
gated the relationship between the leadership
styles of immediate superiors and perceptions of
bullying and mistreatment among subordinates.
Moreover, the lack of attention to negative
aspects of leadership and bullying in the manage-
ment literature is striking, a decit which our
study is addressing by means of employing
a representative sample of the British workforce.
In the study we hypothesized that workplace
bullying, as seen by both observers and targets,
is associated with the lack of participative leader-
ship as well as the presence of autocratic leader-
ship, laissez-faire leadership and non-contingent
punishment. Based on the correlation analysis it
would seem that all these particular styles of
leadership are associated with perceptions of
bullying, whether personally experienced and
self-reported, or as observed indirect experiences.
Both observed bullying and self-reported bullying
were found to be correlated with the presence of
autocratic, laissez-faire and what is referred to as
NCP leadership, as well as the absence of
participative leadership as embodied by ones
immediate superior. Yet, an important nding in
our study is that observers and victims of bullying
still appear to have dierent perceptions of what
constitutes bullying. Thus, whilst non-contingent
punishment emerged as the single strongest
predictor or risk factor of self-labelled bullying,
autocratic leadership was found to be the
strongest predictor for observed bullying. This
suggests that targets identify bullying rst and
foremost with aggression and punishment arbi-
trarily meted out by managers. Where the
negative and aggressive acts seemingly appear
out of the blue (Adams, 1992; Field, 1996;
Leymann, 1996), catching recipients o guard,
such behaviour could be particularly dicult to
predict and comprehend, thus making it dicult
to protect and defend oneself. This nding also
supports previous work by Kile (1990) and
Ashforth (1994), who describe destructive leaders
who are unpredictable and inconsistent in their
behaviour.
The fact that self-reported bullying was asso-
ciated with an NCP leadership style does not

r 2009 British Academy of Management.

462
Autocratic
leadership
.80
.81
NCP
leadership
.76
.55
.54 Laissez-faire
leadership
.70
Participative
leadership
Figure 2. Leadership styles and self-reported bullying: standardized regression weights, correlations and squared multiple correlations
(nal model)
necessarily preclude the possibility that the leader
might also make use of other styles, possibly to
accommodate dierent circumstances and situa-
tions (Rayner, 1999), as indicated by the high
inter-correlations between the dierent styles.
The view that leaders may be exible, and
operate with a set of leadership styles in order
to adapt to changing needs and situations that
might occur, is not new (see Hersey and
Blanchard, 1969) and is in line with contingency
theories of leadership (e.g. Fiedler, 1978). But
such exibility may also contain some potentially
negative aspects. For example, in the 1960s,
Blake and Mouton (1985) gave a description in
their managerial grid of a corresponding leader-
ship style (labelled 5.5) identied with leaders
who constantly change focus and preferences,
from being considerate (1.9) to uncaring (1.1), or
with a focus solely on production rates (9.1) at
the expense of well-being of subordinates. This
potential unpredictability seems to be very
dicult for the targets of bullying in our study,
as being at the receiving end of punishment
delivered by leaders in a non-contingent manner
is the form of leadership most closely related to
bullying and accords with reports of being in an
abusive leadersubordinate relationship.
The fact that no association was found
between observed bullying and NCP leadership
when controlling for the other leadership styles
H. Hoel et al.
.31
.46 Self reported (R2= .21)
bullying
.40
.06
.08 Observed (R2= .30)
bullying
Significant paths
Insignificant paths
was at rst surprising as one might expect that
observers would also consider such behaviour
unfair and an abuse of power, particularly when
acted out against someone in a subordinate
position with limited opportunity to defend
themselves. However, as bullying is a process
where the protagonists share a past as well as the
present, it is often dicult for bystanders to fully
make sense of the observed behaviour and the
meaning they might have to the actors (Einarsen
et al, 2003; Hoel, Rayner and Cooper, 1999). For
example, a hint or indirect reference to previous
mistakes, delivered in an overtly jovial or positive
tone, could be perceived as a friendly act by
observers, whilst the one for whom the comment
was meant would tend to judge it as sarcasm,
considering it a hostile or aggressive act. In
addition, this behaviour may occur behind closed
doors, hindering any consistent observations by
colleagues. As social interactions between the
parties might take place in various spaces, with or
without witnesses present, bystanders pictures of
the unfolding scenarios and the meaning they
attach to these events will at best be partial and
inaccurate. Therefore, where no visible intimida-
tion or behaviour which clearly breaches ac-
cepted standards of behaviour is performed or
acted out, or where the behaviour is not
considered unfair or unjust by others, observers
judgement might depart from that of targets.
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
Leadership and Bullying
This would particularly be the case where the
bullying is the result of planned or calculated
behaviour, where the punitive and harassing
elements of the behaviour may be deliberately
hidden from observers who might be misled to
interpret harassing behaviour as acts of concern
and interest (Adams, 1992).
Several explanations may account for the fact
that observers particularly associate bullying with
autocratic leadership. For mature and self-con-
dent employees who may have an expectation of
involvement and participation, an autocratic
style of leadership could easily be seen as over-
controlling and inhibiting, although still possibly
considered legitimate. Thus, whilst perceived as
negative and unwelcoming, such behaviour
would not necessarily be seen as bullying by the
actual target. According to Atwater et al. (1998),
in such circumstances, particularly when reect-
ing the culture of the organization, such con-
tingent punishment might be considered eective
in organizational terms. A similar view is put
forward by OReilly and Puer (1989) who argue
that targets and observers might comply with
managerial instructions in order to avoid similar
responses in the future. However, where leaders
ensure compliance by means of force or punish-
ment, their acts may be more likely to produce
perceptions of bullying, particularly where the
behaviour is repeated or systematically directed
towards third parties. The fact that autocratic
leadership in this study was operationalized or
measured by means of behavioural items, which
in terms of their potency (Foels et al., 2000)
would be considered moderate by most standards
and therefore likely to be judged as legitimate,
gives support to the idea that leader behaviour
does not have to be viewed as tyrannical or
downright abusive for it to be perceived as
bullying by observers.
By contrast, whilst leaders application of force
and punishment for non-compliance is likely to
be unwelcoming and unpleasant for recipients,
such encounters might not necessarily be judged
as bullying as long as they are predictable and
perceived as fair. Therefore, even if seen as harsh
by observers, punishment used by autocratic
leaders may still be considered as legitimate by
those at the receiving end and their predictability
might make them easier to cope with. At least, as
most colleagues will also see this behaviour as
unacceptable and it appears to be rather pre-
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
463
dictable, it may be easier to guard against it
whilst also receiving full support from colleagues.
This also raises the question whether observers
might overestimate the presence of bullying
associated with autocratic leadership.
Our ndings suggest that autocratic leaders
will not necessarily be perceived as bullies or
associated with bullying by all people at all times.
But even autocratic, paternalistic leaders could be
perceived as bullies by their subordinates where
their behaviour is seen as stiing, overpowering
and overly controlling. Moreover, autocratic
leaders who are not themselves perceived as
bullies can contribute to environments where
bullying becomes common.
It is of course possible that the distinction
between contingent and non-contingent punish-
ment is blurred and subjective as argued by
Podsako and colleagues (1984), with recipients
tending towards interpreting any repeated pun-
ishment as unfair and unreasonable and thus,
from their point of view, non-contingent upon
their own behaviour. However, our results seem
to be more in line with the ndings of Atwater
et al. (1998), who argued that contingent punish-
ment and non-contingent punishment neither
share common predictors nor have the same
eects on perceptions of leader eectiveness.
Hence, in their view, contingent and non-
contingent punishment should not necessarily
be seen to be at opposite ends of the same
continuum.
Another problem for targets may be the fact
that leaders who resort to behaviour seen as
bullying, in order to have their way or to ensure
compliance, do not have to be destructive in all
situations and in encounters with all subordi-
nates. A destructive leader might also be very
capable with regard to other organizational
tasks and role fullment (Einarsen et al., 2002;
Skogstad, 1997). This provides a reasonable
explanation for the presence and even personal
success of such leaders in many organizations, as
shown in a study by Rayner (1999) of university
employees. In her study very few leaders could be
described as being either constructive or destruc-
tive. Most leaders had subordinates who claimed
that they acted constructively, but at the same
time they also had subordinates who described
their behaviour as destructive and indeed aggres-
sive. Hence, for targets who perceive themselves
as being at the receiving end of unpredictable and
464
unfair behaviour of a punitive nature, such
factors might undermine their chance to draw
attention to their case and build support from
fellow workers in order to le a successful
complaint. This would be true particularly at
the lower levels of the organizational hierarchy as
their organizational status may make them less
susceptible to fair treatment in the eyes of their
colleagues, and thus more vulnerable to being the
target of arbitrary or general aggression (Aquino,
2000; Hodson, Roscigno and Lopez, 2006).
Although passive and unreceptive leadership,
often labelled laissez-faire leadership, has fea-
tured frequently in the leadership literature (e.g.
Bass, 1990; Blake and Mouton, 1985), few studies
have actually investigated the possible negative
eects on subordinates of this leadership style
(see Skogstad et al. (2007) for an exception). Yet,
the present study shows that when leaders
abdicate their responsibility for the work tasks,
show little concern for their subordinates and are
never around to deal with problems, this may
also bring about perceptions of bullying. Still,
our ndings indicate that this is only the case for
targets, with a negative association between
laissez-faire leadership and bullying emerging
for observers, indicating that, when observers
see laissez-faire behaviour, to a lesser degree they
tend to think that someone is bullied. Although
the eects are modest, one may speculate about
these somewhat contradictory results for targets
as opposed to observers. Accordingly, it is argued
that lack of response or non-responsiveness may
also be perceived as a form of ostracism, where
leaders punish subordinates by ignoring them
and their needs (Einarsen et al., 2003). In this
respect, Skogstad and colleagues (2007) showed
that laissez-faire leadership is actually a type of
destructive leader behaviour which demonstrates
a systematic relationship with workplace stres-
sors, bullying at work and psychological distress
among subordinates.
By contrast, the fact that a negative associa-
tion, albeit a modest one, emerged between this
form of passive leadership and observed bullying
might be explained in a similar way as for NCP
leadership in that observers might fail to notice
situations where leaders systematically avoid
involvement with, or deliberately ignore the
needs of, subordinates through their inaction. If
anything, one may argue that it would be more
dicult to acknowledge patterns of inaction than
H. Hoel et al.
actual behaviour or action and thus less likely
that such third-party observations are labelled
bullying.
Practical implications
This paper has shown that, in order to prevent
workplace bullying, organizations need to ac-
knowledge that particular styles of leadership
may be perceived as bullying by subordinates. In
addition to clarifying managements position on
the issue, e.g. in a policy document, an under-
standing of leadership as a potential source of the
problem needs to form part of any management
training programme. This is also a consequence
of the fact that bullying only thrives when it is
condoned, directly or indirectly, by management
(Brodsky, 1976). Our study strongly suggests that
autocratic styles of leadership, where compliance
is secured by means of punishment and the
application of force, is likely to be deemed
unacceptable and unjustied by targets as well
as observers. Yet, an important message from
this study is that unpredictable and unfair
treatment is seen as a far more important
predictor of bullying by targets than by ob-
servers. This nding has a message both to those
involved with leader selection and training and to
those involved in complaints procedures and
investigations. Regarding the latter, our ndings
may indicate that many claims of bullying may
not be supported as observers view other leader-
ship styles as more problematic in this respect
than do targets.
In the same way as negative or destructive
styles of leadership need to become a criterion in
selection and promotion processes, and an
important part of the appraisal process, man-
agers need to be encouraged to regularly assess
their own behaviour. Whilst those managers most
in need of changing their leadership style may be
unlikely to consider this a problem in the rst
place, and thus need to be helped to change,
other managers would have a more open and
self-critical approach to their own management
style. Some of them may be managers who are
perceived as constructive, or who act in a
predominantly constructive way, but who revert
under intense pressure to destructive behaviour,
with severe consequences for those directly
aected. By being aware of this problem, and
having an understanding of the psychological
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
Leadership and Bullying
processes associated with bullying observed in
this study, organizations may also prevent
accusations of bullying from being ignored or
not believed when apparently good managers are
in the ring line.
However, there is one clear message coming
from both targets and observers alike, i.e. that
organizations must address the issue of passive or
laissez-faire styles of management, as doing
nothing may be potentially destructive in its
own right (see also Skogstad et al., 2007). Thus,
even passive and not overtly aggressive leaders
may be causing claims of bullying, or at least
laying the ground for bullying to occur among
co-workers.
Limitations
A major strength of the current study is its large,
random and representative sample. However,
there are some important limitations. The study
is cross-sectional which militates against claims
about causality (Zapf, Dormann and Frese,
1996). We assume that the direction of the
relationship is from leader behaviour to percep-
tions of bullying, or at least that is how
subordinates perceive or construe such leader
behaviour. However, it is also possible that the
presence of bullying in the workplace might
inuence leader behaviour. Another possible
limitation is the fact that the study is based on
self-reports. Thus, this may give rise to common
method variance which could have inated the
relationship between the variables (Podsako
et al., 2003). In the present study we were also
unable to separate out bullying behaviour on the
part of leaders from similar behaviour by
colleagues or by leaders in collusion with
colleagues. However, in the context of the UK
bullies are overwhelmingly found to be leaders,
which was also the case in the present study, at
least based on the targets reports. Furthermore,
although bullying seemingly is associated with
particular styles of leadership, none of these
styles should be considered as bullying per se as
they will have dierent meanings to dierent
people in dierent situations. Moreover, as has
been demonstrated in this paper, targets and
observers might not share the same perspective
on when particular styles of leadership are seen as
bullying, raising the question whether targets or
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
465
observers respectively are underestimating or
overestimating levels of bullying.
Conclusions
By exploring the association between various
styles of leadership, on the one hand, and self-
reported and observed bullying, on the other, this
study has made a contribution to an under-
researched area of study. It has conrmed
previous ndings which associate destructive
leadership, not only with lack of eectiveness in
the execution of the leader role, but with
damaging and possibly debilitating experiences
for subordinates. The study has also emphasized
the role of punishment in leadership, a key
ingredient in targets perception of being bullied
at work. Although it cannot be ruled out that
arbitrary use of punishment may reside in the
perception of the targets, the ndings indicate
that managers might use punishment deliberately
and for both personal and organizational gain.
Moreover, where punishment is administered
arbitrarily or in a way that is non-contingent
upon the situation, its unpredictability makes it
likely that it is labelled as bullying by the target.
The fact that these perceptions are not
necessarily shared by observers must be under-
stood in the light of the nature of the bullying
process, where observers seldom have access to
the same information as targets. Observers for
their part, and dierently from targets, associate
bullying particularly with an autocratic style of
leadership, where application of force or punish-
ment may be deemed unacceptable and possibly
as bullying. This could suggest that observers
might draw conclusions about bullying which are
not necessarily shared by targets, possibly with
implications for their commitment to, and long-
term relationship with, the organization.
Moreover, whilst active and consistent destruc-
tive styles of leadership, such as an autocratic
leadership style, may be easier to identify and
condemn, passive destructive behaviour may at
times be equally damaging. So far, we know
much more about eective and constructive
leadership than we do about destructive leader-
ship and more about active destructive leadership
than passive destructive leadership. Therefore,
destructive leadership behaviour and its out-
comes should be examined in greater detail in
466
future studies. There is a strong need for a better
understanding of destructive leadership per se as
well as of theoretical models of leadership which
also contain destructive elements of leadership.
In order to understand how and why destructive
leadership styles are used and how they are
perceived, future empirical studies must go
beyond cross-sectional data, exploring these
problems as they arise and persist within the
given context.
References
Adams, A. (1992). Bullying at Work: How to Confront and
Overcome It. London: Virago.
Aquino, K. (2000). Structural and individual determinants of
workplace victimization: the eects of hierarchical status and
conict management style, Journal of Management, 26, pp.
171193.
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations, Human
Relations, 47, pp. 755778.
Atwater, L. E., S. D. Dionne, J. F. Camobreco, B. J. Avolio
and A. Lau (1998). Individual attributes and leadership
style: predicting the use of punishment and its eects,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, pp. 559576.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational
leadership: learning to share a vision, Organizational
Dynamics, 18, pp. 1932.
Bass, B. M. and B. J. Avolio (1990). Developing transforma-
tional leadership: 1992 and beyond, Journal of European
Industrial Training, 14, pp. 2127.
Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the t of models to covariances and
methodology to the Bulletin, Psychological Bulletin, 112, pp.
400404.
Bentler, P. M. and K. H. Yuan (1999). Structural equation
modelling with small samples: test statistics, Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 34, pp. 181197.
Blake, R. R. and J. S. Mouton (1985). The Managerial Grid.
Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Brodsky, C. M. (1976). The Harassed Worker. Lexington, MA:
Heath.
Browne, M. W. and R. Cudeck (1993). Alternative ways of
assessing model t. In K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long (eds),
Testing Structural Equation Models, pp. 445455. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Burnes, B. (2007). Kurt Lewin and the Harwood studies,
Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 43, pp. 213231.
Di Martino, V., H. Hoel and C. L. Cooper (2003). Preventing
Violence and Harassment in the Workplace. European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions, Luxembourg: Oce for Ocial Publications of
the European Community.
Einarsen, S. (1996). Bullying and harassment at work
epidemiological and psychological aspects. Unpublished
PhD thesis, Department of Psychological Science, University
of Bergen.
Einarsen, S. and B. I. Raknes (1991). Mobbing i Arbeidslivet: En
underskelse av forekomst og helsemessige konsekvenser av
H. Hoel et al.
mobbing pa norske arbeidsplasser. Universitetet i Bergen:
FASH.
Einarsen, S. and A. Skogstad (1996). Bullying at work:
epidemiological ndings in public and private organizations,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5,
pp. 185201.
Einarsen, S., M. S. Aasland and A. Skogstad (2007).
Destructive leadership behaviour: a denition and concep-
tual model, Leadership Quarterly, 18, pp. 207216.
Einarsen, S., B. I. Raknes and S. B. Matthiesen (1994).
Bullying and harassment at work and their relationships to
work environment quality: an exploratory study, European
Work and Organizational Psychologist, 4, pp. 381401.
Einarsen, S., A. Skogstad, M. S. Aasland and A. M. S. Bakken-
Lseth (2002). Destruktivt lederskap: Arsaker og konsek-
venser. In A. Skogstad and S. Einarsen (eds), Ledelse pa
Godt og Vondt. Eektivitet og Trivsel, pp. 233254. Bergen:
Fagbokforlaget Bergen.
Einarsen, S., H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C. L. Cooper (2003).
Bullying and Emotional Abuse: International Perspectives in
Research and Practice. London: Taylor and Francis.
Ekvall, G., M. Frankenhaeuser, E. Gunarsson and D. Parr
(2002). Ledarstil ledarstress arbeidsklimat medarbetar-
reaktioner. Studier av kvinnelige och mannlige chefar och deras
medarbetare. Stockholm: Stochholms Universitet Faradet.
Felson, R. B. (1992). Kick em when theyre down: explana-
tions of the relationship between stress and interpersonal
aggression and violence, The Sociologist Quarterly, 33, pp.
116.
Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics
of the leadership process. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, pp. 59112. New York:
Academic Press.
Field, T. (1996). Bully in Sight: How to Predict, Resist,
Challenge and Combat Workplace Bullying. Wantage: Wessex
Press.
Foels, R., J. E. Driskell, B. Mullen and E. Salas (2000). The
eects of demographic leadership on group member satisfac-
tion, Small Group Research, 31, pp. 676701.
Frischer, J. and K. Larsson (2000). Laissez-faire in research
education an inquiry into a Swedish doctoral program,
Higher Education Policy, 13, pp. 131155.
Frost, P. J. (2004). Handling toxic emotions: new challenges
for leaders and their organization, Organizational Dynamics,
33, pp. 111127.
Glas, L. and S. Einarsen (2006). Experienced aects in leader
subordinate relationships, Scandinavian Journal of Manage-
ment, 22, pp. 4973.
Glas, L., K. Ekerholt, S. Barman and S. Einarsen (2006). The
instrumentality of emotions in leadersubordinate relation-
ships, International Journal of Work Organization and
Emotion, 1, pp. 255276.
Hersey, P. and K. H. Blanchard (1969). Management and
Organizational Behaviour. Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hodson, R., V. J. Roscigno and S. H. Lopez (2006). Chaos and
the abuse of power: workplace bullying organizational and
interactional context, Work and Occupations, 33, pp. 382
416.
Hoel, H. and C. L. Cooper (2000). Destructive conict and
bullying at work. Unpublished report, Manchester School of
Management, University of Manchester Institute of Science
and Technology.
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
Leadership and Bullying
Hoel, H. and D. Salin (2003). Organisational antecedents of
workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.
L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the
Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Prac-
tice, pp. 203218. London: Taylor and Francis.
Hoel, H., C. L. Cooper and B. Faragher (2001). The experience
of bullying in Great Britain: the impact of organisational
culture, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 10, pp. 443456.
Hoel, H., S. Einarsen and C. L. Cooper (2003). Organisational
eects of bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.
L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the
Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Prac-
tice, pp. 145161. London: Taylor and Francis.
Hoel, H., B. Faragher and C. L. Cooper (2004). Bullying is
detrimental to health, but all bullying behaviours are not
equally damaging, British Journal of Guidance and Counsel-
ling, 32, pp. 367387.
Hoel, H., C. Rayner and C. L. Cooper (1999). Workplace
bullying. In C. L. Cooper and I. T. Robertson (eds),
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psy-
chology, pp. 195230. Chichester: Wiley.
Hogan, R. (1994). Trouble at the top: causes and consequences
of managerial incompetence, Consulting Psychology Journal,
46, pp. 915.
Hogan, R. and J. Hogan (2001). Assessing leadership: a view
from the dark side, International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 9, pp. 4051.
Hogan, R., R. Raskin and D. Fazzini (1990). The dark side of
charisma. In K. E. Clark and M. B. Clark (eds), Measures of
Leadership, pp. 343354. West Orange, NJ: Leadership
Library of America.
Johnson, N. J. and T. Klee (2007). Passive-aggressive behavior
and leadership styles in organizations, Journal of Leadership
and Organizational Studies, 14, pp. 130142.
Keashly, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace:
conceptual and empirical issues, Journal of Emotional Abuse,
1, pp. 85117.
Keashly, L. and K. Jagatic (2000). The nature, extent and
impact of emotional abuse in the workplace: results of a
statewide survey. Paper presented at the Academy of
Management Conference, Toronto, 58 August.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. and D. Miller (1984). The Neurotic
Organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kile, S. M. (1990). Helsefarlige Ledere - og Medarbeidere. Oslo:
Hjemmets bokforlag.
Lewin, K., R. Lippitt and R. White (1939). Patterns of
aggressive behaviour in experimentally created social
climates, Journal of Social Psychology, 10, pp. 271299. Rayner, C. and C. L. Cooper (2003). The black hole in
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at
workplaces, Violence and Victims, 5, pp. 119126.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing
at work, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 5, pp. 165184.
Merchant, V. and H. Hoel (2003). Investigating complaints of
bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C. L. Cooper
(eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace:
International Perspectives in Research and Practice, pp. 259
269. London: Taylor and Francis.
Niedl, K. (1996). Mobbing and well-being: economic and
personnel development implications, European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, pp. 203214.
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
467
Northouse, P. C. (2004). Leadership: Theory and Practice.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
OMoore, M., E. Seigne, L. McGuire and M. Smith (1998).
Victims of bullying at work in Ireland, Journal of
Occupational Health and Safety Australia and New Zealand,
14, pp. 569574.
OReilly, C. and S. Puer (1989). The impact of reward and
punishment in a social context: a laboratory and eld
experiment, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, pp.
4153.
Packard, S. H. and D. R. Kauppi (1999). Rehabilitation
agency leadership style: impact on subordinates job
satisfaction, Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin, 43, pp.
511.
Paoli, P. and D. Merille (2001). Third European Survey on
Working Conditions 2000. European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Luxem-
bourg: Oce for Ocial Publications of the European
Community.
Pearson, C. M., L. M. Andersson and C. L. Porath (2005).
Workplace incivility. In F. S. Fox and P. E. Spector (eds),
Counterproductive Work Behaviour, pp. 177200. Washing-
ton, DC: American Psychological Association.
Peng, T. K. and M. F. Peterson (1998). Contingent and
noncontingent social rewards and punishment from leaders:
do US and Japanese subordinates make comparable distinc-
tions?, International Business Review, 7, pp. 6987.
Podsako, P. M., W. D. Todor and R. Skov (1982). Eects of
leader performance contingent and non-contingent reward
and punishment behaviors on subordinate performance and
satisfaction, Academy of Management Journal, 25, pp. 812
821.
Podsako, P. M., W. D. Todor, R. A. Grover and V. L. Huber
(1984). Situational moderators of leader reward and punish-
ment behavior: fact or ction?, Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 34, pp. 2163.
Podsako, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee and N. Podsako
(2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: a
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, pp. 879903.
Price Spratlen, L. (1995). Interpersonal conict which includes
mistreatment in a university workplace, Violence and
Victims, 10, pp. 285297.
Rayner, C. (1999). Bullying in the workplace. Unpublished
doctoral thesis, University of Manchester Institute of Science
and Technology.
bullying at work research, International Journal of
Management Decision Making, 4, pp. 4764.
Rayner, C., H. Hoel and C. L. Cooper (2002). Workplace
Bullying. What We Know, Who is to Blame, and What Can
We Do? London: Taylor and Francis.
Sheehan, M., P. McCarthy, M. Barker and M. Henderson
(2001). A model for assessing the impact and costs of
workplace bullying. Paper presented at the Standing
Conference on Organizational Symbolism, Trinity College
Dublin.
Skogstad, A. (1997). Eects of leadership behaviour on job
satisfaction, health and eciency. Doctoral thesis, Faculty
of Psychology, University of Bergen.
468 H. Hoel et al.

Skogstad, A., S. Einarsen, T. Torsheim, M. S. Aasland and
H. Hetland (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire
behaviour, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12,
pp. 8092.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision,
Academy of Management Journal, 43, pp. 178190.
Unison (1997). Unisons Members Experience of Bullying at
Work. London: Unison.
Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullying: psychological
work environment and organisational climate, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, pp.
203214.
Vartia, M. (2001). Consequences of workplace bullying with
respect to well-being of its targets and the observers of
bullying, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and
Health, 27, pp. 6369.
Yukl, G. (2000). Leadership in Organizations, 4th edn. Engle-
wood Clis, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zapf, D. (1999). Organizational, work group related and
personal causes of mobbing/bullying at work, International
Journal of Manpower, 20, pp. 7085.
Zapf, D., C. Dormann and M. Frese (1996). Longitudinal
studies in organizational stress research: a review
of the literature with reference to methodological
issues, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, pp.
145169.
Zapf, D., S. Einarsen, H. Hoel and M. Vartia (2003). Empirical
ndings on bullying in the workplace. In S. Einarsen, H.
Hoel, D. Zapf and C. L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and
Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives
in Research and Practice, pp. 103126. London: Taylor and
Francis.

Helge Hoel (PhD) is a lecturer at Manchester Business School, the University of Manchester, UK.
Together with Professor Cary Cooper he carried out the rst nationwide study of bullying in Britain.
He has written and contributed to a number of articles, books and reports in the area of bullying,
violence and harassment. He has also acted as adviser to the Norwegian Government in its campaign
against bullying in the workplace.

Lars Glas (PhD) is Associate Professor at the University of Bergen and a former director of the
Norwegian Institute of Group and Organizational Psychology (NORIGO). He has been a
consultant to private and public organizations in Europe for more than 15 years and has published
articles and book-chapters in the areas of leadership and emotions, leadership development,
consultancy and workplace bullying.

Jrn Hetland (PhD) is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen. After
completing his PhD in 1998 he has worked at the Research Centre for Health Promotion at the
University of Bergen specializing in the areas of adolescent health, smoking prevention and
workplace bullying.

Cary L. Cooper is Professor of Organizational Psychology and Health at Lancaster University

Management School, UK. He is President of the British Association for Counselling and
Psychotherapy and an Honorary Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians. In 2001 he was awarded
the CBE for his work in the eld of occupational health.

Stale Einarsen is Professor of Work and Organizational Psychology at the University of Bergen. He
has published extensively on issues related to leadership, bullying/harassment and creativity. He also
has extensive experience as an organizational consultant in the area of conict management and
leadership training. He has acted as adviser to the Norwegian Government in its campaign against
bullying in the workplace.

r 2009 British Academy of Management.